Author
Topic: Incident on Marmont Avenue (Read 6237 times)

Canon Rumors Sponsors a Short Film ProjectMy friend Mitch from Planet5D decided to make a short film with another new friend Barry Andersson from Deodand Entertainment. Mitch asked if I wanted to provide some funding, and I obliged. The film is the first I’ve seen shot entirely with the Canon EOS 5D Mark III, and that’s what drew me into the project. I hung out with both of these guys at NAB and was quite impressed by how serious they took the project, from the story, execution and casting. I hope to help more in the future.

Barry Andersson, director and co-producer, said: “The film was designed to fit a budget that many filmmakers and still photographers can afford. My team tailored our shooting schedule, equipment and techniques to be accessible to all budget levels. My goal was to show that people can get absurdly good results with a DSLR camera with a smaller price tag than they realize.”

The film and summary after the break.

Incident on Marmont Avenue (Based on true events)On November 12, 2011 the police were called to an incident at 1701 Marmont Avenue. This film is the story of what happened that night.

This project is one of the first narrative films to showcase the Canon 5D Mark III. We are excited to present a project that shows what DSLR technology can do for independent filmmakers at any budget. The entire film was shot on Zeiss CP.2 lenses courtesy of Carl Zeiss (zeiss.com/cine/cp2).

For optimized viewing please consider the following:We have done an audio mix to split the difference for those listing on a laptop and those listening with headphones and/or good speakers. You may have a hard time hearing some of the subtle sound design just listening through your laptop speakers. We recommend listing with headphones or a good audio system.

canon rumors FORUM

The whole thing could have been trimmed to at least 13min with a few cleaner cuts. getting rid of some of the not needed beauty shots.

Speaking of which, the camera and lighting was just that beautiful.

Shame the same couldn't be said about the sound.

That was my biggest let down of the whole thing, the sound (which is 30% of the movie experience) just didn't feel right. Parts felt like it was recorded on camera others to an external recorder, foley was overdone and inconsistent.

Lets not forget the continuity issues like the fact he hears them upstairs through the monitor but he unplugged the monitor. Or when the kid was given the lollypop? When the sitter and the old guy come to check on her she doesn't, but then when the mom comes down she does again. Strange, especially when he gives it to her when the old guy first gets there?

Any time a character says to themselves out loud "I'm just being paranoid", you know you need to revise the script. The shocking reveal that what we assumed had happened had in fact happened was also not very shocking.

Story and dialogue aside, this thing had a lot of problems and wasn't a good reflection of the power of the 5D3, but good for them for making it in the first place. I'm sure they learned a lot. There are plenty of bad films with huge budgets, and a few that I stopped watching, whereas at least I saw this through to the bitter end!

The whole thing could have been trimmed to at least 13min with a few cleaner cuts. getting rid of some of the not needed beauty shots.

Speaking of which, the camera and lighting was just that beautiful.

Shame the same couldn't be said about the sound.

That was my biggest let down of the whole thing, the sound (which is 30% of the movie experience) just didn't feel right. Parts felt like it was recorded on camera others to an external recorder, foley was overdone and inconsistent.

Lets not forget the continuity issues like the fact he hears them upstairs through the monitor but he unplugged the monitor. Or when the kid was given the lollypop? When the sitter and the old guy come to check on her she doesn't, but then when the mom comes down she does again. Strange, especially when he gives it to her when the old guy first gets there?

Again beautifully shot but a few issues that spoilt it overall.

Thank you for taking time to comment.

Unfortunately, you're not getting the timing of when things happened... some of the scenes with the creepy guy were shifted early in the short to make you think... the flashbacks are all in the proper sequence tho.

He doesn't hear things thru the monitor, he hears them thru the house, we tried to muffle the sounds as if they were from a distance, not thru the monitor. Maybe that didn't work as well as we wanted. None of the sound was recorded on the 5D3 - it was all done with external mics on booms.

He gives the girl the lollypop just before he hides behind the door when he hears Becca and Charlie coming down the stairs and in the hall but she hides it in the blankets and they don't see it. The mom sees it after he's long gone. There are a few minor continuity errors, but that's not one of them.

As for Marmont Ave: Why pay for actors, when the script doesn't require much acting? They'd have been much better off hiring better looking people(or at least more interesting looking), for less money.

This feels like a group of Hollywood clowns decided to make a movie in one night(after a few bottles of wine).

This sure did feel long for a short film, I think it would be much better if at least 1/3 of the footage was cut out. It get like a rough cut than a finished product, I don't know how someone could have watched that and been happy enough with it to release it. Flashbacks are hard to utilize effectively in short films, and I don't feel like they worked very well here. I think a better editor could have made a world of difference. I will say that Tom Cruise's crazy looking cousin was an excellent choice for a pedophile, but the babysitter was pretty bad. The sound was very flat and sounded like it was coming from a laptop even though it was playing through very nice Klipsch setup. It was just kind of dull overall. But for a "display of what the Mark III can do" in terms of image quality it was pretty effective.

The short that unkbob posted is much better, but that's just evidence of the fact that you don't need to have tons of equipment to make a good short/movie. People would much rather see a short with a solid story than something that's all show with no depth. I have a friend that spends so much time worrying about elaborate shots and filters that he totally neglects the content of the story, and it always shows.

All that aside, the whole "5DIII isn't good enough for my movie" is a totally invalid excuse. People complaining about it's "poor resolution" are just giving themselves an excuse for why they haven't made an awesome movie yet (while major networks seem to be doing just fine even with the Mark II). If you can't make a good movie with a 5DII/III or 7D it's not going to be any better on an Alexa or Epic.

Logged

5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

canon rumors FORUM

This short was shot in two days, with a budget of 10,000 a day(if I remember correctly) yet they made it to show what people on low budgets can do with this camera??? Thats not such a small budget to me